Yeah okay, all those make sense. I guess what I was missing was the difference between "paid for a new car" and "individuals who buy new cars." That was a pretty amateur mistake. Oh well, I still have 11 more days to improve.

I suppose, but I still don't see why it's right. What does the proportion of individuals buying new cars have to do with the ratio of income to price of the car? Furthermore, who buys a car other than an "individual?"

Over the last 25 years, the average price paid for a new car has steadily increased in relation to average individual income. This increase indicates that individuals who buy new cars today spend, on average, a larger amount relative to their incomes buying a car than their counterparts did 25 years ago.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?

A)There has been a significant increase over the last 25 years in the proportion of individuals in households with more than one wage earner.B)The number of used cars sold annually is the same as it was 25 years ago.C)Allowing for inflation, average individual income has significantly declined over the last 25 years.D)During the last 25 years, annual new-car sales and the population have both increased, but new-car sales have increased by a greater percentage.E)Sales to individuals make up a smaller proportion of all new-car sales than they did 25 years ago.

You make some good points Bengal, but it should be much easier, and its much more fair, to evaluate how someone will do in law school by how they have done previously in undergraduate school.

But not all undergraduate schools, or majors for that matter, are on an equal playing field. Also, law school is unlike any undergraduate experience (or so I'm told). I will admit that undergraduate GPA represents a person's work ethic. However, work ethic can be improved, whereas aptitude for thinking like a lawyer can't.